No problem. If you take the line that we are adults and have the right to decide for ourselves what we watch, does that include watching an act of child abuse - even if it's not 'real'?Originally Posted by Stewart
Child abuse? What are you talking about, you mad man?
If you are going to just drop child abuse into a thread about needless video game censorship, you'll need more than a few words. Explain your position and then I will respond.
I think that's taking things a bit out of context. Its reasonably obvious what Stu meant (IMO), considering the thread is about violent games / Manhunt 2.
There is a difference between a violent game and child <abuse - edited>. By playing a violent game, its not exploited anyone, or hurt anyone directly or indirectly (lets just forget the nutcases that Jack brings up for now).
Last edited by Agent; 22-06-2007 at 12:38 PM.
I didn't use the words child porn, I used child abuse.
And even if I hadn't, the point still holds - the arguement was that adults shouldn't be told what they can and cannot watch. My arguement is quite simple - they should, and I was giving examples why.
If you want to say 'we shouldn't be told when it comes to violence, but should be told when it comes to other things' then you're accepting my arguement that there are some things which should be censored.
Given the context of the thread, I believe Stu was arguing that he should be able to watch violent films that he chooses, not anything to do with children.
Well his exact words wereThere was no reference to limiting that to only being told what to see and can handle regarding violence to and by adults only.Still, if you are the sort of person who prefers to be told what you are allowed to see and can handle, by a man in a suit, rather than being aware of your own limitations
If he's saying some censorship is good, then I'm in agreement. That wasn't what I infered from the above
If you agree that some censorship is good, then cool - it's just a matter of opinion where to draw the line, which is what the BBFC is for.
ie - don't complain about being told what you are allowed to see or not by some person, instead complain with the decision that person makes, not the fact that he's making the decision.
Last edited by kalniel; 22-06-2007 at 01:56 PM.
Stands a good chance its about the subject in question though, no?
In a thread titled "Rockstar set to appeal against ManHunt 2 ban?", I doubt he was aiming his views towards something as sickening as involving kids.
Child abuse hurts someone directly and physically.
Playing a violent game does not.
If he Stu had made that comment, then had to put in brackets everything he disagreed with he would probably have spent the best part of a year typing it. So in the true way that forums work, shall we just assume that his post was aimed at the subject in question?
Last edited by Agent; 22-06-2007 at 02:01 PM. Reason: engrish
What if it were a game about child abuse that didnt feature real kids?
Sam
"bother", said Pooh. "There's an infinite number of monkeys at the door wanting to sue A.A.Milne for plagiarism."
No I don't think it does - if you're argueing about the decision someone makes, but agree with the fact that there is someone making the decisions, why go on about being told what to do by someone? It would be better to just say you don't agree with their decision.
Anyway, instead of us discussion what someone else meant, it would be clearer if stew just answered the question I posed: Are there some forms of 'being told what you are allowed to see and can handle' that you do accept?
Last edited by kalniel; 22-06-2007 at 02:18 PM.
Exactly - that was what I was saying - just as a video game/film isn't featuring real violence to someone.
There is leagues of difference between child abuse and violence.
If you honestly think that the comments towards one of these subjects can be applied to another, well, im speechless. To be honest I don't really want to get into a debate about the two either.
Of course someone has to make decisions about what the public should and should not see, but the very people that make these decisions are indirectly put there by the public themselves.
The issue here is not about if we should release games that feature abuse towards kids, but if Manhunt 2 should be released - lets stick to that, eh?
Perhaps it might be better to word it that way, but this is just getting to be a play on words thread. Remind me to never play Scrabble with you guysNo I don't think it does - if you're argueing about the decision someone makes, but agree with the fact that there is someone making the decisions, why go on about being told what to do by someone? It would be better to just say you don't agree with their decision.
But either way, I just dont see how you can take a comment aimed towards video game violence then try to apply the same logic to child abuse. Stu's comment was about the subject in question not child abuse.
Applying the same comment to child abuse is just twisting the context in what it as written.
Well maybe I just needed Stu to clarify that he did agree with some forms of censorship. Honestly as I read it it looked to me like he was argueing against *any* form of being told what to see, I really didn't read it as only being told what to see with regard to violence towards only adults. The context did not suggest to me otherwise (ie it seemed like the 'don't be told what to see' statment was infact the a priori general one, of which the application towards video game violence was just a subset).
Er.. let me also try rephrasing that and repeating myself incase this is an easier way of describing it.
Take a world viewpoint that we shouldn't be told what to see by anyone. Now talk about violence in video games, you can bring out your world viewpoint in the arguement because it justifies your thoughts when applied to the violence in video games. That's how I saw stu's statement.
Hence my repeated requests for clarification that Stu's world viewpoint isn't that we shouldn't be told what to see and what we can handle by someone else
On the seperate subject:How do we indirectly put people there?Of course someone has to make decisions about what the public should and should not see, but the very people that make these decisions are indirectly put there by the public themselves.
Last edited by kalniel; 22-06-2007 at 03:21 PM.
Man! what's it going to be like when bioshock comes out then????
I know Stu's a bit of a wild, loose, manly cannon sometimes but Even Stu isn't stupid enough to believe that child abusing material should be sold on the shelves
I have no doubt that he agrees with some form of censorship, although if he comes and says otherwise now, ill eat my words
http://film.guardian.co.uk/censorshi...666650,00.html
Is a very good read
That will cover exactly who runs / control the BBFC - all the major players are put there indirectly by who we elect ect...
Yes.
More later when I have time...
Interesting, but I'm missing the thing about the players being put there by who we elect - it's the end of the day and I just can't see it
http://film.guardian.co.uk/censorshi...666650,00.html
Is a very good read
That will cover exactly who runs / control the BBFC - all the major players are put there indirectly by who we elect ect...
I can read that it treads carefully and doesn't want to piss off govt. and that its choice of president is done trying to keep the home office/ofcom happy.. but that's not the same thing has govt (and thus who we elect) actually putting someone there.
OK, would a game that featured a graphic rape of a woman be ok?
Obviously there are worlds of difference between child abuse and violence, but my point was simply that a line has to be drawn somewhere. This "we're adults, we can handle it" stuff just isn't true, if you ask me!
Sam
"bother", said Pooh. "There's an infinite number of monkeys at the door wanting to sue A.A.Milne for plagiarism."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
